Will the Member States of the European Union succeed in agreeing on new avenues for reforming the European asylum system in 2020, which they have not been able to do since 2016?
Meeting in Brussels on Monday 2 December, EU Interior Ministers discussed the future of European migration policies on the basis of a report by the Finnish Presidency of the Council of the EU, which summarises most of the debates held on the issue over the past 6 months (see EUROPE 12379/4).
According to the European Commissioner for Home Affairs, Ylva Johansson, the discussions showed “a new impetus”. Member States have sent the “signal that they really want to find solutions” to unblock this reform. They are the same ones who seemed to abandon the reform, however: the last compromise on the so-called ‘Dublin system’ dating back to the Bulgarian Presidency of the Council of the EU in the first half of 2018.
The Vice-President of the Commission, Margaritis Schinas, shared the same observation. He also said he was “very confident” that the Member States will succeed, this time, in this reform under the mandate of the von der Leyen Commission. “We can't afford a second failure”, he added.
The two Commissioners are preparing the new Pact for Asylum and Migration, on which they will start a tour of European capitals on Thursday (see other news).
The Finnish Presidency’s report highlights some key principles on which there is more or less consensus among the Twenty-Seven on the future reform of the asylum system – for example, harmonising only what is necessary, achieving effective asylum procedures or building solidarity with countries facing sudden migration pressures.
On Monday, some Member States also individually put forward their own work plans.
Hence, in recent days, the German government has circulated a draft proposal for reflection on the reform of the so-called ‘Dublin’ Regulation, which sets out the responsibilities of the Member States in the processing of asylum applications (see EUROPE 12376/11). The French and Greeks also presented ideas on Monday 2 December.
But the outlines still need to be refined between capitals. Thus, Paris seems to be somewhat behind compared to the system proposed by Berlin, which is similar to the automatic relocation of asylum seekers between Member States on the basis of a fair distribution (GDP, population size), and prefers a relocation of asylum seekers only in the event of a migration ‘spike’.
However, there is a consensus between the two capitals on one point: much more systematic verification at the external borders for persons seeking asylum and likely to receive it and those likely to fail. As a result, these latter cases will have to be quickly returned to their countries of origin.
Germany and France certainly seem to agree that this requires more resources – including increased resources for the European Border and Coast Guard Agency or the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) for frontline countries.
But then differences appear on the method to be followed. Whereas Berlin proposes that countries quickly divide up asylum seekers likely to receive a positive opinion and thus become responsible for them, Paris seems to want to maintain responsibility at the level of front-line countries.
With Greece, there is a common point: the need to receive more support to cope with the arrivals of migrants and asylum seekers. But Greece and Italy did not necessarily inform their partners that they agreed to keep this responsibility for asylum seekers, even with increased aid. This “is one of the points still to be discussed”, admits one diplomatic source.
Other modalities to be adopted: the mandatory nature of relocation, which certainly seems to be present in the German document, while Paris considers that countries which, like those of Visegrád, have always opposed this system can otherwise contribute to this solidarity through financial aid. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)